Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 211 of 377 (612983)
04-20-2011 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by SavageD
04-20-2011 7:37 PM


So SavageD do you think plants, insects and animals are they only types of life on this planet?
Maybe you should establish some bonafides and give us an idea of what you think are the biological kingdoms of life.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 7:37 PM SavageD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 212 of 377 (612984)
04-20-2011 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by SavageD
04-20-2011 7:24 PM


Oh? what is the alternative to chance?
There are a number of alternatives, of which the most relevant to this thread would be evolution.
Tautologies only apply to reasoning. simply saying your cats name is mittens isn't a problem, saying my cats name is mittens 'because' Mittens is the name of my kitten, is.
Then I suggest that you construct a stupid strawman of evolutionary thought that actually is a tautology.
Better still, you could discuss the actual theory of evolution, but I guess that would leave you short of worthless arguments.
Things evolve because of mutation. Natural selection is the reason why evolution has an adaptive tendency. Evolution has an adaptive tendency because Natural selection is the reason.
Again, writing the same thing twice does not make it into a tautology. Tautologies are not made by writing the same thing twice.
A statement can be true and meaningful despite being written twice. In despite of being written twice, truth and meaning can inhere in a statement.
These statements do not become less cogent because I wrote them twice. The fact that I wrote them twice does not lessen the cogency of these statements.
The evolution theory never attempts to describe how the mechanisms for natural selection arose, it simply ignores this factor. From this perspective natural selection is simply a product created by chance....and happens by chance.
Writing the same thing twice also does not make it more meaningful.
That is still just vague gibberish. Could you try to make some more definite mistake?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 7:24 PM SavageD has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 213 of 377 (612985)
04-20-2011 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by SavageD
04-20-2011 7:24 PM


The evolution theory never attempts to describe how the mechanisms for natural selection arose, it simply ignores this factor. From this perspective natural selection is simply a product created by chance....and happens by chance.
Are you completely ignoring my Message 205, or are you wanting until you can think if some way to misconstrue my explanation before you respond to it?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 7:24 PM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 8:15 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 3752 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 214 of 377 (612988)
04-20-2011 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by subbie
04-20-2011 7:56 PM


subbie writes:
The evolution theory never attempts to describe how the mechanisms for natural selection arose, it simply ignores this factor. From this perspective natural selection is simply a product created by chance....and happens by chance.
Are you completely ignoring my Message 205, or are you wanting until you can think if some way to misconstrue my explanation before you respond to it?
you think I'm super human, give me a break, can't respond to all of you, I'm constantly bombarded with responses. It's the norm of this forum to attack anyone who disagree with the evolution theory in numbers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by subbie, posted 04-20-2011 7:56 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by crashfrog, posted 04-20-2011 10:31 PM SavageD has not replied
 Message 216 by Coyote, posted 04-20-2011 10:33 PM SavageD has not replied
 Message 217 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-21-2011 2:55 AM SavageD has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 215 of 377 (612996)
04-20-2011 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by SavageD
04-20-2011 8:15 PM


It's the norm of this forum to attack anyone who disagree with the evolution theory in numbers.
If you would like to restrict your interolocutors to a smaller number, you need only nominate whoever you'd like to interact with. Informally, in this thread you could simply ask those you don't nominate not to reply, or if you'd like that to be enforced, you can open a Great Debate topic with any individual or individuals you choose, provided they agree.
There's certainly more evolutionists here - it's a science forum, after all, where dishonesty and cheating are not allowed. Most creationists find it impossible to participate under such conditions. Regardless, if you're feeling overwhelmed you can simply say so and nominate the people you'd like to continue participating with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 8:15 PM SavageD has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 216 of 377 (612997)
04-20-2011 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by SavageD
04-20-2011 8:15 PM


The norm...
It's the norm of this forum to attack anyone who disagree with the evolution theory in numbers.
This is the interweb.
It is the norm to attack anyone you disagree with. Period.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 8:15 PM SavageD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 217 of 377 (613008)
04-21-2011 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by SavageD
04-20-2011 8:15 PM


you think I'm super human, give me a break, can't respond to all of you, I'm constantly bombarded with responses. It's the norm of this forum to attack anyone who disagree with the evolution theory in numbers.
If you would stick to the topic of the thread, instead of using it as a platform to be wrong about the theory of evolution (a subject totally unrelated to the actual topic) you might find yourself with fewer posts to reply to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 8:15 PM SavageD has not replied

  
AdminSlev
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 03-28-2010


Message 218 of 377 (613009)
04-21-2011 3:55 AM


Stay On Topic
The topic here is about intelligent design, and why Intelligent Designers propose a single designer and not many.
It is not about the a scientific and/or logical analysis of the Theory of Evolution, as compared to anything else.. Everyone try to stay on the subject, which is ID.
Also, note that a participant is not obliged to respond to all replies he gets. This is more important for creationist/IDers, since they are the ones receiving multiple replies to the same posts. They cannot always answer back as it can become time consuming, amongst other things. In those cases that another participant does not reply to a post you would have liked a reply, bring it back into the discussion in a comprehensive manner and not an accusive manner. This will help in the overall discussion (all this applies only if your reply was on topic, everyone here are grownupes and can judge if the discussion is staying on topic)

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 219 of 377 (613014)
04-21-2011 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Jon
04-19-2011 8:57 PM


Re: UNNECESSARY Plurality and Parsimony
Jon writes:
But IDists don't really posit their designer as some sort of 'ultimate first cause'.
According Ringo ID and biblical creationism are one and the same thing so I don't see how he can be saying that. If we are talking about Intelligent Design in the context of religious belief then the role of designer and ultimate creator are almost invariably one and the same.
Jon writes:
Everything we know about designing tells us that more than one designer is the norm.
OK. But if you are really going to base the number of designers of the universe on our evidenced experience of humans designing things then it is not true to say that there is no preferred number. The optimal number of a human design team is between 4 and 12.
So are you postulating that between 4 and 12 designers of the universe is the evidenced conclusion here?
It seems ridiculous to me - But this is the logical consequence of your argument here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Jon, posted 04-19-2011 8:57 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Jon, posted 04-21-2011 12:09 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 220 of 377 (613016)
04-21-2011 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by ringo
04-19-2011 3:28 PM


Re: UNNECESSARY Plurality and Parsimony
I have provided you with Occam's statement in two different formats:
  • "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity).
  • "pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" (plurality should not be posited without necessity)
    Quite evidently a single designing entity is more parsimonious than a plurality of such entities. Let me explain to you where you are going wrong in your analysis with regard to the importance of necessity.
    ringo writes:
    The first assumption is that one or more designers exist.
    No. The first assumption is that the universe is designed.
    ringo writes:
    The second assumption is that only one exists.
    No. The logical conclusion is that if the universe is designed something must necessarily have designed it. A designer is a logical necessity based on the first assumption.
    ringo writes:
    Two is more than one.
    Indeed. Which is why two or more designers is an unnecessary plurality.
    ringo writes:
    I think I pointed out earlier in the thread that "intelligent design" has implications for religion that the religious don't anticipate and don't want to hear about. One of them is the likelihood of multiple designers.
    If a direct comparison with human designers is to be made then between 4 and 12 designers would be postulated. This is the optimal number of a human design team. But given that in pretty much any religious context the role of designer and ultimate first-cause-creator are one and the same this doesn't seem like a very legitimate comparison.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 181 by ringo, posted 04-19-2011 3:28 PM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 222 by ringo, posted 04-21-2011 10:42 AM Straggler has replied

      
    Peter
    Member (Idle past 1479 days)
    Posts: 2161
    From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
    Joined: 02-05-2002


    Message 221 of 377 (613033)
    04-21-2011 10:18 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by frako
    04-12-2011 5:24 PM


    Am I stating the obvious?
    ID does not require a single designer.
    I assume that a significant proportion of ID proponents come from a mono-theistic religous background, and they therefore assume their designer to be a single entity.
    Those individuals when asked to consider multiple designers will probably reject the idea and come up with some reason for doing so (e.g. multiple designers are not necessary to explore the 'theory').
    Since it is hard to point precisely to what it is about the Universe around us that screams 'I was designed', finding the conceptual differences one would expect from a multi-designer as compared to a single-designer hypothesis is ... well ... a bit tricky.
    ID (for me) makes little sense in any case; after all if all complex entities must be designed, so was the designer ... then who designed it ... and who designed it's designer ... ad nauseum.
    If we can get back far enough to find a complex, yet not designed entity then ID is, by definition, false.
    And since that is the ONLY possible starting point ... ID is clearly false.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by frako, posted 04-12-2011 5:24 PM frako has not replied

      
    ringo
    Member (Idle past 412 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    Message 222 of 377 (613037)
    04-21-2011 10:42 AM
    Reply to: Message 220 by Straggler
    04-21-2011 6:49 AM


    Re: UNNECESSARY Plurality and Parsimony
    Straggler writes:
    The first assumption is that the universe is designed.
    Fair enough.
    Straggler writes:
    The logical conclusion is that if the universe is designed something must necessarily have designed it.
    Fair enough.
    Straggler writes:
    A designer is a logical necessity based on the first assumption.
    There's where you go wrong. You're making an unstated assumption, a third, unnecessary assumption about the number of designers.
    Straggler writes:
    Which is why two or more designers is an unnecessary plurality.
    You seem to be confused by the terms "entity" and "plurality". As I understand it, Occam's principle refers to logical enities - e.g. assumptions - not "things". An unnecessary plurality of ideas is undesirable. It has nothing to do with a plurality of the things that the ideas are about.
    Straggler writes:
    ... in pretty much any religious context the role of designer and ultimate first-cause-creator are one and the same....
    You seem to be missing the rather obvious point that that's an unnecessary assumption.

    If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 220 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 6:49 AM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 223 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 11:33 AM ringo has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 223 of 377 (613047)
    04-21-2011 11:33 AM
    Reply to: Message 222 by ringo
    04-21-2011 10:42 AM


    Re: UNNECESSARY Plurality and Parsimony
    ringo writes:
    You seem to be confused by the terms "entity" and "plurality". As I understand it, Occam's principle refers to logical enities - e.g. assumptions - not "things"
    As I understand it as eliminating that which is neither logically or evidentially necessary.
    ringo writes:
    An unnecessary plurality of ideas is undesirable.
    Yes.
    ringo writes:
    It has nothing to do with a plurality of the things that the ideas are about.
    If the universe is designed then a minimum of one designer is a necessity. A plurality of designers is however neither logically nor evidentially necessary.
    So why posit such a scenario?
    ringo writes:
    Straggler writes:
    If a direct comparison with human designers is to be made then between 4 and 12 designers would be postulated. This is the optimal number of a human design team. But given that in pretty much any religious context the role of designer and ultimate first-cause-creator are one and the same this doesn't seem like a very legitimate comparison.
    You seem to be missing the rather obvious point that that's an unnecessary assumption.
    You seem to be missing the much stated point that the whole premise of this thread (i.e that the universe is designed) is an unnecessary assumption intended to make some sort of comparison with the designers that are the objects of various religious belief.
    But if you take only some of the unnecessary assumptions made by the religious and discard others which also pertain to the number of designers they invoke then you are creating a strawman version of their position which there seems little point exploring.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 222 by ringo, posted 04-21-2011 10:42 AM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 224 by ringo, posted 04-21-2011 11:53 AM Straggler has replied

      
    ringo
    Member (Idle past 412 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    Message 224 of 377 (613051)
    04-21-2011 11:53 AM
    Reply to: Message 223 by Straggler
    04-21-2011 11:33 AM


    Re: UNNECESSARY Plurality and Parsimony
    Straggler writes:
    A plurality of designers is however neither logically nor evidentially necessary.
    Quantifying the "design presence" is neither logically nor evidentially necessary.
    Straggler writes:
    You seem to be missing the much stated point that the whole premise of this thread (i.e that the universe is designed) is an unnecessary assumption intended to make some sort of comparison with the designers that are the objects of various religious belief.
    But if you take only some of the unnecessary assumptions made by the religious and discard others which also pertain to the number of designers they invoke then you are creating a strawman version of their position which there seems little point exploring.
    First, note my signature.
    Second, my whole premise in this thread is that IDists don't understand the implications of their own assumptions. I don't see why I should have to accept all of their assumptions just to point out the ones that are wrong.

    If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 223 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 11:33 AM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 227 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 12:28 PM ringo has replied

      
    Jon
    Inactive Member


    Message 225 of 377 (613054)
    04-21-2011 12:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 219 by Straggler
    04-21-2011 6:25 AM


    Re: UNNECESSARY Plurality and Parsimony
    The optimal number of a human design team is between 4 and 12.
    In ID, 'designer' encompasses planning and construction; that includes the design team and all the workers on the factory floor.
    Based on the analogy used by IDists, the number of designers for the Universe should be well over 12.
    Jon
    Edited by Jon, : clarity

    Love your enemies!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 219 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 6:25 AM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 226 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 12:14 PM Jon has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024